Augustine report, Thur Oct 22

[newsartist]

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=29430

Don't get your hopes up.

Press reports over the past month showed that a lot of talking was done to assure Washington that the Ares 1-X money was already spent, and there would be little savings by cancelling it.

 

[mr_mark]

Re: Augustine report, tomorrow

An Augustine panel member just recommended going with Ares 1 and 5 and expressed a desire to continue with the current program. Along with Bolden's requst for a Jupiter review, It's going to be a showdown and interesting. I'm wondering if the Jupiter request is just a back up in case Ares I-X fails? Sounds like pure politics to me just to keep a few people happy. The report also said that the USAF does not feel that the Jupiter program has merit and would interfere with nation security goals.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Re: Augustine report, tomorrow

This really sin't about a Mission or a Launch, so I will move it to SB&T but leave a copy here for a few days. When you click in either forum, you will be brought to the active thread.

 

[job1207]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/scien ... a.html?hpw

The NY Times account.

 

[js117]

Here is the link to the report 157 pages

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/396093main_HSF_ ... Report.pdf

 

[gwobserver]

I just finished reading the Augustine report and have a question for everyone. Why would you ever deorbit the ISS? We could sell it to one of the international partners or give it to them. We could give it to spacex. We could ask the vasimr designers to test their engine by taking it to a higher orbit. Surely someone would buy the multi billion dollar space laboratory. The whole, retire it by 2016, seems like a trick to get more funding since it seems so short sighted to spend billions on this thing and then quit when it is just finished. The suggestion in my opinion gives space exploration the image of being a complete waste,which I don't think it is. We should at the least smash it into the moon to see if anything happens(just kidding there) Just wondering if anyone has a decent reason why we couldn't at least auction it off if not actually use it for it's designed mission.

 

[Eman_3]

A very relevant quote from the Concluding Observations of the report.

One way to assure that no successes are achieved it to continually introduce change

And that my friends, is the fundamental problem. The US political system does introduce changes whenever any change in administration occurs.

 

[jakethesnake]

I absolutely agree!

I hope that a bipartisan Congress puts their foot down on this one.

The Constellation program has been voted on twice by Congress and passed both times and they need to hold their ground.

How in the world can anyone cancel Ares 1 and hope to field a human rated launcher earlier?

Does anyone truly believe that a commercial company will be able to human rate a launcher sooner than NASA?

Give me a break!

The Augustine Commission is counting on launchers that are nothing more than paper dreams at this point, and safety has literally been thrown aside.

 

[vattas]

We could sell it to one of the international partners or give it to them. We could give it to spacex.

It's been said many times before and I will say it again - it's not that easy to sell or give ISS to someone. Because ISS is not only the thing it the orbit, but also ground equipment and staff. It would probably take years to educate completely new ground crew...

 

[bluegrassgazer]

I read two very good articles this morning about the report. It seems that even just funding Ares I and the ISS jointly is not in the budget. I was also alarmed to hear that there would be only two Ares I flights a year.

http://www.floridatoday.com/article...5/1007/news02/Ares+I+rocket+close++yet+so+far

http://www.floridatoday.com/article...s02/Review+panel+signals+NASA+s+turning+point

Personally, developing the Ares V and keeping funding for the ISS would be ideal, but I'm still nervous about depending on private enterprise to reach LEO. I remember after Columbia was lost, there was a fair amount of criticism about the fact NASA depended so much on private contractors to do much of the work. What a private company may do with pressure to make flight schedules and keep costs down makes me worry.

 

[thermionic]

There was a bit in that FloridaToday article that caught my attention, that ATK might want to be hired to build Ares1. Presumably so it won't loose the business entirely, and AresV might actually come into existance. Can ATK afford to do something like that? Do they have a few spare $B in the bank after gauging us for the development of the 5 segment booster?

 

[Swampcat]

There was a bit in that FloridaToday article that caught my attention, that ATK might want to be hired to build Ares1. Presumably so it won't loose the business entirely, and AresV might actually come into existance. Can ATK afford to do something like that? Do they have a few spare $B in the bank after gauging us for the development of the 5 segment booster?

You may have just been unclear here, but ATK already builds the solid rocket motor segments to be used in the Ares I first stage.

Also, ATK will be the builder of the second stage of Orbital Sciences Corporation's Taurus II launch vehicle. This vehicle, being developed with assistance from NASA under the COTS program, is to carry the Cygnus spacecraft to ISS for resupply purposes. OSC has suggested that a passenger carrying version could be developed. This may be what ATK is referring to.

 

[thermionic]

The way it sounded to me is that ATK seems to want to take over the whole Ares1 project, beyond just the solid motor part they already do. I don't know if this would be good or bad, maybe allowing the government to put the $$ in a different category or pay later. Maybe ATK gets an opportunity to increase their profits. Maybe the corresponding lobbying effort would increase the chances that the project would get funded. A tangled web... I do remember being shocked at how much $$ ATK wanted to develop the 5-segment motor from the 4-segment. I don't know the ins&outs of the effort like you guys do, but it didn't seem to me that it should have cost the $2B or whatever they asked for that work.

I'm sure ATK would like both the Ares1 and AresV programs to be active so they can sell that many more solid motors. Is it exactly the same unit for both rockets?

------From FloridaToday---------

And there's one last twist that could result in Ares I, or a variation of it, being the vehicle that launches astronauts to low Earth orbit anyway. The committee called for open competition for the commercial astronaut taxi system, one that would allow bids from any company with a viable launcher. Might one of those bidders be ATK Launch Systems and its partners, transforming the substantial work they have done on Ares I into some form of commercial crew transport?

Maybe, said former NASA Chief Astronaut Charlie Precourt, who is now the vice president and general manager of ATK.

"There's still some development work to go, but I think our industry team is very favorably thinking that whatever method delivers the product is something we'd be willing to consider. So we're talking about that with NASA," Precourt said. "It's all about how you get to the end state for less cost and improved schedule, so we're brainstorming all kinds of things."

 

[radarredux]

I'm sure ATK would like both the Ares1 and AresV programs to be active so they can sell that many more solid motors. Is it exactly the same unit for both rockets?

I remember early in the Constellation discussions Griffin mentioned that building Ares I first removes a lot of the technical risks associated with the Ares V since both will be using the same 5-segment boosters. Of course Ares I is a stand-alone rocket and not just a booster so there is probably a lot more involved (more steering, control, etc.).